Acer has been having a difficult time in the computer market over the last several quarters, and has posted consecutive annual losses. Acer also announced during its latest quarterly report that it had taken $120 million write-off due to the declining value of Gateway, Packard Bell, and eMachines-branded computers.

Despite these troubles, the company is touting strong sales of its Chromebooks that use Google’s Chrome OS, while still talking negatively about Windows 8.

Acer says that notebooks running Chrome OS account for 5 to 10% of its U.S. shipments since the machines were released here in November. Acer President Jim Wong said that he expects the ratio of Chrome sales to be sustainable in the long term. He also said that the company is considering offering additional Chrome OS models in other developed markets.

Acer C7 Chromebook

Acer and many other computer makers are looking for alternatives to the Windows operating system because consumers continue to stick with older versions of the operating system rather than upgrade to the latest version.

“Windows 8 itself is still not successful,” said Wong. “The whole market didn’t come back to growth after the Windows 8 launch, that’s a simple way to judge if it is successful or not.”

Wong criticized Windows 8 earlier this month alleging that Microsoft was getting marketing for its new operating system wrong.

I still haven't had anyone explain to me why it's a "huge negative change".

You hit the win key or go to the corner and click (just like win7), and on a typical 1080p screen you can have >70 programs one click away. Either that or you type, just like win7 except you get more results.

How on earth is that a negative change? Did you enjoy clicking and scrolling unnecessarily inside the Win7 start menu to launch a program?

Assuming that you actually have 70 applications... How is side scrolling through 70 metro tiles easier then immediately jumping to what you want on an alphabatized list in the programs menu of your start menu.

If anything desktop metro makes the most sense if you only have a handful of applications that all fit on one metro screen.

For a power user, spending money to switch a casual/mobile oriented OS just makes no sense. If it was free I "MIGHT" switch, at $$$ don't make me laugh.

If you have <70 applications, you can fit them all on one screen without any scrolling. Cheap 1080p monitors will allow up to 6 rows and 12-14 columns (depending on spacers) visible at once:http://blogs.msdn.com/cfs-file.ashx/__key/communit...Higher res will allow even more.

What's immediate about the win7 start menu? It needs multiple clicks and scrolling to start a program. For most people, Win8 needs only one click and no scrolling . People like you keep saying that it's no good for a power user yet keep failing to give a reason why.

Don't like Metro apps? Fine, don't use them. I can't force you to like them, so take them off the start page and stick with desktop apps.

But the notion that the Win8 start page is less productive than the Win7 start menu? That's unequivocally and objectively BS. That's why you are utterly incapable of putting together a coherent argument to prove it, and resort to name calling instead.

I don't know why people find this hard to understand. To me it just shows a breakdown in their ability to understand the scope of the situation or the business/customer relationship. They don't understand what factors are in the business's control and what factors are out of their control, and as a result they have trouble getting the most out of a situation.

A company is in the business of selling products to customers. Customers demand certain features in those products. If a company gives customers what they want (regardless of why they think they want it), the company makes money. If the company makes a decision to "improve" upon their product and they take away features that customers want, they risk losing those customers. That is exactly what Microsoft did here.

It's very similar to the car debates the pop up on Dailytech. People ask why car manufacturers keep coming out with SUVs when most people never go offroad, the SUVs don't handle as well, and they got poor gas mileage. By all accounts these customers would be better suited to buy an economy car or minivan. But the customer with cash in hand wants to buy an SUV.

The manufacturer can either give the customer what she wants or it can listen to critics who don't give them any money. I can tell you where the money and profit is- catering to customer demand.

During the development of Windows 8 Microsoft had to make the decision whether to keep the traditional look of Windows that its customers liked or to try to force them in a different, mobile-oriented direction. Microsoft made a decision that the majority of their customers didn't like so their bottom line is reflecting that decision.

I am not asking whether there are some people who don't like Win8, nor am I questioning why sales are slightly down in the face of that reaction.

I am specifically asking why using a start page (where you only click on desktop shortcuts) is a "huge negative change" vs a Win7 start menu. I'm asking for a rational reason, not a restatement of your claim.

1. The Start Button is a more efficient user interface for a desktop user because you can click in the corner and see a list of programs you installed. A list is a more logical display of information than a set of tiles. From Phonebooks, restaurant menus, presentations, book indexes, Google Search results... pretty much anytime you need to display a sorted set of information, a list is the most logical and efficient manner to display it. It's inherently easy to sort and categorize information in a list, so it scales well. Laying out tiles or thumbnails may look attractive but it's not as straightforward or logical. It also takes up more space so the information density is lower. It also doesn't scale well with larger numbers of items.

For a tablet operating system I can understand why they'd do it. The large tiles are easier to manipulate with your finger than a list would be. The problem is that the vast majority of Windows 8 users won't be using it on a tablet; they'll be using it on a desktop or laptop that has a keyboard and mouse. For these users, the Windows 8 touch optimizations were an unnecessary tradeoff. If I wanted a tablet OS I'd buy a tablet that came with one.

Also, probably the biggest thing that pissed people off is the fact that Microsoft took away the ability to remove the touch optimizations. The tiny Start8 program does it very effectively so it wasn't a technical hurdle on Microsoft's part. I can understand that they'd want to include touch functionality for tablets. But to 1) make that the default setting and 2) remove the ability of users to disable it just showed hubris on Microsoft's part. Why not give customers the option to choose classic mode like all previous versions allowed?

It's because Microsoft is trying to FORCE its users to buy into their mobile strategy. Microsoft has a 90% market share on desktops/laptop operating systems but only a tiny fraction of the growing mobile space. Microsoft wants to MAKE SURE their desktop users get used to their mobile look and feel so that they become more likely to buy a Microsoft phone or tablet. I don't like being corralled like that.

quote: A list is a more logical display of information than a set of tiles.

For common actions, the vast majority of applications use icons and buttons in a tile-like layout. Imagine if Word or Excel got rid of buttons and put everything in menu lists.

It's funny that you mention restaurant menus, because when speed and efficiency matter (drive through menus, fast food menus at the cashier), you overwhelmingly have a tile-like layout extending horizontally, dominated by pictorial information.

For searches, win8 gives you lists just like win7, google, etc, except using the whole screen as it should. Imagine if you googled something, but the results were squeezed into the left fifth of the screen. That's the win7 approach, and win8 is a vast improvement.

quote: It also takes up more space so the information density is lower.

Density is lower, but total information presented is higher. This argument is similar to how Apple fans say the iPhone display is superior due to higher dpi, but how is that an advantage if resolution (i.e. total information) is less?

You only click on the start button when you intentionally want to change tasks, so why conserve space and limit information?

quote: Why not give customers the option to choose classic mode like all previous versions allowed?

I can understand attachment to what's familiar, but I don't understand the claims of the start page being less productive. You bring it up, click once, and it's gone.

You're right that there's a little hubris, but that's not all. Having two start menus would make win8 even more bipolar. There's value in having a unified look across a company's entire product line, particularly with the way tasks are shifting from one platform to another. It's very likely that we'll have tablet hybrids displacing notebooks/desktops for 90% of the market, with docks and monitors for desktop use, and a few years later I can see PadFone type devices where smartphones become the only computing device. What else are we going to do with ever increasing mobile computing power? All things considered, I think MS has chosen a pretty optimal solution to the disruptive impact of mobile technology.

Their biggest mistake is in not being more helpful out of the box. There should be a better, more accessible tutorial, and there should also be a guide about how usable the start page can be for organizing and launching desktop apps, typing to search, etc.

But for educated power users? I just don't see how win8 slows you down in any way if you just ignore metro.

quote: It's very likely that we'll have tablet hybrids displacing notebooks/desktops for 90% of the market, with docks and monitors for desktop use, and a few years later I can see PadFone type devices where smartphones become the only computing device. What else are we going to do with ever increasing mobile computing power? All things considered, I think MS has chosen a pretty optimal solution to the disruptive impact of mobile technology.

The problem is that they did not need to deal with it on their desktop operating system. They could have added the capabilities without making them the default, and they certainly shouldn't have forced users to adopt that style. Apple did not change OSX to become like iOS, they realized that iOS works best on the iPhone/iPad while OSX worked best on their desktops/laptops.

Microsoft made a tradeoff where one was not necessary. They tried to satisfy multiple market forces that were pulling in different directions and they made a bad tradeoff. They made another Pontiac Aztek. I remember when that thing was new how automotive press claimed how innovative the design was, how roomy and versatile it was, how it was a new trend in vehicles, etc. People hated it and it went down in history as being one of the worst car designs ever.

As far as mobile/tablets go, there's a lot of hype surrounding them right now because it's a new market that has enjoyed a high profit margin. People tend to extrapolate the growth trends and come to the conclusion that mobile devices will take over and become this huge cash crop. This will not happen. As in every new market, the rapid growth that occurs in the beginning eventually yields to slower sustainable growth. Products get cheaper and the profit margins dry up. Innovation slows as all products adopt the most useful features. The devices become a commodity.

Because Metro is a failure as an UI for this generation of PCs.The fraction of PCs that support Windows8 is insignificant. Windows8 was built with touchscreen in mind and usability with mouse is objectively worse. Significantly more clicks, more mouse travel, unintuitive gestures for mouse... and a whole bunch of tablet limitation that didn't exist on PC before W8. Why one app per screen? And that's not including minor issues like collision of two scroll bars in MS's own apps(when you scroll in the app sideways until you encounter vertical scroll and start scrolling vertically).It's just not for current PCs. And I don't see huge movement towards touch screens on PCs from manufacturers.

Slowly but surely you're beginning to sound just like the early detractors of Windows 8.

If you remember, in the development phase of Windows 8 there was lots of arguing about how people will use computers with Windows 8. Most Windows 8 fans stated that they intend on using the full-screen Metro apps instead of the "antiquated" windowed applications that people traditionally used. Windows 8 fans were all about that new touch-screen functionality and optimization.

Now that Windows 8 has flopped the fans have shifted their message slightly. They say that it still runs Windowed applications better than Windows 7. They say that you don't have to use the full-screen Metro apps. They say that you can install Start8 if you want the Start Button back.

In other words, they're finally realizing that in order to make Windows 8 better, people should work around all the touch optimizations that the detractors have been complaining about from the beginning.

Why are you now creating a strawman? I never said or thought that touch applications would replace desktop apps, and we're talking about how easy it is for people to use win8 for desktop apps, not why they chose to do so.

You still insist that people have to "work around" something to use Win8 primarily for desktop apps. What work are you talking about?

Arranging icons? I had to organize/delete win7 start menu items as well. Clicking the corner on the rare occasion you boot? I can't think of anything else, so do tell.

I think that you're doing your best to avoid admitting the obvious- people view Windows 8 as a step backward. They simply do not want it. They do not want it on their desktop, they do not want it on their laptop, and they do not want it on their tablet.

As I've said from the beginning, Microsoft has positioned Windows 8 in no-man's-land. It's become a jack of all trades, master of none. In an effort to cater both to desktop users and also to mobile users, they've made an operating system that works well on neither.

When half of your customers want pickup trucks and half of your customers want motorcycles, you design a pickup truck and a motorcycle. You do not design a giant motorcycle with a bed on the back.

quote: When half of your customers want pickup trucks and half of your customers want motorcycles, you design a pickup truck and a motorcycle. You do not design a giant motorcycle with a bed on the back.

How does a win8 start page impede your use of desktop apps over a win7 start menu?

What workarounds need to be done?

This discussion isn't about sales (which have been fine, BTW), this isn't about the existence of a minority of overall users that don't want it, or the majority of hardcores, or your perception of want, or the Apple-loving media's trashing of Win8, or like/dislike.

I have always asked only one thing: What is a RATIONAL explanation of how Win8 impedes your desktop productivity? If you keep dodging that, it's because you can't answer it, and thus Win8 hate has no functional basis; instead, it is simply about clinging to the aesthetically familiar.